Meh... not funny IMO because it's too unidirectional. Allegiance to the U.S. & Constitution <> allegiance to party, partisan ideology, or corporate/personal entities, and I'm feckin' sick and tired of the Obama "we're not exceptional" diatribe.

We ARE exceptional, even though we're desperately blasting away at what made us so. Anyone who doesn't believe that should live in (not just visit) a couple of 3rd-world shytepits and even some other 1st-world ones.

Yes, yes. You can choose any master you wish, just so long as you never question whether or not you need a master at all.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

However it remains axiomatic that the majority of the population want and need masters. For the minority to get their wish - self-rule with no interference from "authority" - we would have to go against the wishes of the majority, which would be undemocra- wait. What?

Yes, yes. You can choose any master you wish, just so long as you never question whether or not you need a master at all.

Click to expand...

Allegiance <> subservience, and I love the smug way you ignore that people like <me> are what allow people like <you> to even exist. Even if you are a survival expert, you would be jailed & executed <IF NOT FOR> the Constitution; pretending as you do that anarchy is a viable system is, well, nothing short of stupid. Stupid because believing that "safety in numbers" will somehow safeguard liberty has been disproved repeatedly. Even America the isolated can't ignore the outside world, and we were involved in numerous wars because we recognized that fact - not because we're Statist meddlers.

That's why I can't consider myself a "true" Libertarian like you - there's too many nutbags that learned nothing from the Articles of Confederation and other experiments in anarchy. Open borders, (unnatural) monopolies, no national defense, the supremacy of self-ordering systems, abuse of common goods, the belief that a lack of offense will not invite aggression... heck, there's so many things to laugh at you for that I can't begin to name them all.

However it remains axiomatic that the majority of the population want and need masters. For the minority to get their wish - self-rule with no interference from "authority" - we would have to go against the wishes of the majority, which would be undemocra- wait. What?

Click to expand...

I believe the Founders underestimated the determination of Evil, such as the followers of Marx - their writings indicate that some were seduced by the lure of collectivism in the French Revolution, only to realize just how unable a self-ordered system is of maintaining itself in the face of populism or outside manipulation.

To say nothing of exterior pressure or force. Nothing to do with your incredibly arrogant "people as lapdogs" assumption. Instead, simple survival - it isn't like African nations are <all> hotbeds of Statism, but the least centralized ones are the fastest to fall to Islamist aggression.

I believe the Founders underestimated the determination of Evil, such as the followers of Marx - their writings indicate that some were seduced by the lure of collectivism in the French Revolution, only to realize just how unable a self-ordered system is of maintaining itself in the face of populism or outside manipulation.

Click to expand...

I believe that the Founders would not have equated Marxists with Agents of Lucifer. See what I did there? I took one of your posits and applied near-lunatic amounts of hyperbole to it. You've taught me well, sensei.

To say nothing of exterior pressure or force.

Click to expand...

Placeholder - the point behind this seems valid to me.

Nothing to do with your incredibly arrogant "people as lapdogs" assumption.

Click to expand...

Then we go all hyper-boll0cks again. I mention nothing about lapdogs and all the baggage assigned to that moniker. As for arrogance ... you have met human beings before, haven't you?

Instead, simple survival - it isn't like African nations are <all> hotbeds of Statism, but the least centralized ones are the fastest to fall to Islamist aggression.

Click to expand...

And we are back in the Land of Rational again. My passport is quickly going to fill with stamps, what with all the travelling back and forth we do here on the forums :yes:

Then we go all hyper-boll0cks again. I mention nothing about lapdogs and all the baggage assigned to that moniker.

Click to expand...

You asserted that the majority "want and need masters". I call counter-boll0cks. The majority want to be left in peace to their own devices; it's the much smaller segment that agitate for rule. Most of those aren't overtly stupid, but instead see THEMSELVES as those who are fit to rule everyone else, condemning the entire body politic to unnecessary strife and wasted wealth/energy.

Going to have to call the second point moot. I haven't been in the US for a lot of years now, it's possible that the majority of Americans are as self-sufficient as you suggest. My experiences in the UK have possibly coloured my perceptions, to the extent where I see sheep where none actually exist.

A core of rage has been slowly building in me over the years over Nanny State issues. :rant:

Going to have to call the second point moot. I haven't been in the US for a lot of years now, it's possible that the majority of Americans are as self-sufficient as you suggest.

Click to expand...

If they're not fully dependent upon the Motherland, then BY GOD! We'll make them be! [/sarc]

You wonder why I despise Democrat Progressives far more than Republican ones? Because they claim to actually be empowering the very people they're arse-r@ping. I wonder if Steve will dare trot out that bullcrap about the imaginary "Southern Strategy" again? Ann Coulter's got at least two chapters about the real Democrat attitude in her latest bucket of bile.

My experiences in the UK have possibly coloured my perceptions, to the extent where I see sheep where none actually exist.
A core of rage has been slowly building in me over the years over Nanny State issues. :rant:

Click to expand...

I don't doubt it. Personally I'm appalled at what I'm reading, and I only lived there in my (erstwhile) childhood. Then again, I think we're not "light years" behind you - particularly in the "Behead those who insult Islam" arena.

If they're not fully dependent upon the Motherland, then BY GOD! We'll make them be! [/sarc]

You wonder why I despise Democrat Progressives far more than Republican ones? Because they claim to actually be empowering the very people they're arse-r@ping. I wonder if Steve will dare trot out that bullcrap about the imaginary "Southern Strategy" again? Ann Coulter's got at least two chapters about the real Democrat attitude in her latest bucket of bile.

Click to expand...

um, what bullcrap about southern strategy? I'm not sure what conversation you're referring to. I don't think I've ever accused the GOP of appealling to racism. I get on about their positions on religious issues, but I've never said boo about racism.

But again, as long as they support the colorblind society I think we're still aligned (I'm anti-affirmative action). When I vote for the GOP, it's not because of racial issues. I also can't think of a time I didn't vote for a GOP candidate because of racial issues. I suppose the closest one would have been avoiding Oberweis because of things he said regarding Mexicans in Aurora, but I had other issues with him that stem from local politics you all don't care about. Besides, I'm not entirely sure he wasn't saying what he thought everyone there wanted to hear.

um, what bullcrap about southern strategy? I'm not sure what conversation you're referring to. I don't think I've ever accused the GOP of appealling to racism. I get on about their positions on religious issues, but I've never said boo about racism.

Click to expand...

Maybe I confused you with Techno? An easy mistake to make, trust me. :tongue:

First, as cretinous as I consider Mehlman to be, he didn't say anything about a "Southern Strategy" nor anything beyond 'some Republicans didn't reach out'. If you don't get why someone would grovel for ethnic votes from a racist organization, then you're not a true Democrat.

Second, even if the GOP <DID> suddenly decide to shut its trap in hopes of scooping up some disaffected Democrat racists, it certainly doesn't quantify the wholesale lie told by the Left about the GOP being the party of racism, "Bull" Connor, and all the rest. The Democrat Party was the traditional party of racism, IS the current party of racism, and will likely always BE the party of racism as long as it exists. The GOP, for all their iniquity, are the party that doesn't care what color your skin is as long as you have cash and can have your labor exploited.

I like Ann. She's hilariously pro-queer, and it ties the fascist Left into knots because they're really quite anti-queer.

Even more amusingly, she crossed swords with a comedian named Joe DeRosa on RedEye a couple of nights back - DeRosa is a mild leftist, of Lebanese heritage, and an ardent Atheist - you'd like him. Well, DeRosa said that the religious assertions by Ray Lewis are a sham, and Coulter contended that they're sincere. It devolved into DeRosa claiming that honoring the moral positivism of Christianity in a formal setting like a court is no different from claiming "the Devil made me do it". Coulter asked why someone can't claim that "the Devil made me do it", and DeRosa was disdainful - he asked if she thought that constituted a valid defense. She said something to the effect of "Sure: Satanic motivation. Guilty as charged. Execution. NEXT!"

Found it. Starts about 14:25 - I think they "catch" her about her allies in the queer Republican ranks as well.

DeRosa was flabbergasted, and stuttered things about reality and thinking this was a news show. That's why I like her.

But again, as long as they support the colorblind society I think we're still aligned (I'm anti-affirmative action).

Click to expand...

We differ again. I'm not anti-affirmative action, nor am I allowed to be, but I definitely realize that things have gone so far as to be counter-productive. When I hear talk about how admitting women to the military will neither degrade the force nor will be supported by quotas and the whole shebang, I want to beat someone's head in.

Here's a far better discussion of it than I could ever provide. Colonel West is DA MAN! Well, not really, because the Socialist Democrats are the Establishment, but he <should be> DA MAN!

I love the smug way you ignore that people like <me> are what allow people like <you> to even exist.

Click to expand...

You must be very limber to fellate yourself like that, but you should really do it in private.

pretending as you do that anarchy is a viable system is, well, nothing short of stupid.

Click to expand...

Your argument is underwhelming. If you want to debate the merits of anarchy, let's start with the basics: who have you read on the subject and how much?

I'm pretty much done with the "I've thought about this issue for at least 30 seconds now, so I can confidently say that I believe [insert inane statement here]" crowd, but you're a politically savvy guy and you seem to read a lot, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've studied up.

Leave it to jmerv to ruin a nice topic.Saro's points stands true, no need to attack his person by calling him anarchist, he's just the messenger here. Take taxes as an easy example. Either you pay taxes and are part of society, getting all the benefits, or you get the H*** out. If not, "we'll" come after you, and probably put you to prison, take away your home, really make your life insufferable, and only because you didn't want to give us your money, so you could get the benefits.Now if it was only a couple of countries, but it's like this everywhere in the world. You can't go nowhere without someone claiming to be your leader, no matter your opinion. Using arguments as the majority decides. Yes majority decides is better than a dictatorship, but what would be the very best is if we all could get what we want, no one deciding over us.Now please forgive me for not further explaining any details as I'm sure the lack of imagination of any counter opinion will rise, such as "it's impossible for everyone to get what they want", or "sure I get what I want, I beat you up", missing the essential part of not fulfilling the premise of EVERYONE getting what they want.The funny thing is that stuff like intellectual property only exists, because there's enough power behind supporting it. If a group, such as a country, with power beyond that of any realistic opposition, decided not to respect the intellectual property of John Doe, no mysterious force of nature would act upon this. There wouldn't suddenly be people suffering all over the world. Heck Mr. Doe wouldn't even have a way of noticing it without being informed by someone.

Saro's points stands true, no need to attack his person by calling him anarchist

Click to expand...

Jmerv might consider "anarchist" a pejorative term, but I certainly don't; I am an anarchist.

Yes majority decides is better than a dictatorship

Click to expand...

Ahhh, but is it? Is having multiple masters who whip you better than having only one? Hans-Herman Hoppe has some interesting thoughts in this area.

The American colonies revolted over what we would today consider relatively minor tax burdens. Now 50%+ of our income is stolen by leviathan and the elites still debate how they might possibly squeeze more out of us at every turn. What did we get out of the deal? Well, they let us pretend that our wishes are important by allowing us to cast a meaningless ballot every couple years. God bless democracy: pacifying the tax cattle.